Phil 447- (TCO 1) "Thinking about thinking" is the definition of what?

Asked by sunshine
Dated: 28th Jun'15 12:20 PM
Bounty offered: $35.00

Phil 447 Final Exam

Page 1

Question 1.1. (TCO 1) "Thinking about thinking" is the definition of what? (Points : 4)

Development of arguments

Measure of good sense

Development of critical skills

Writing for clarity

Critical thinking

Question 2.2. (TCO 1, 2, 4) What is the principle concern when handling an issue? (Points : 4)

Whether a given claim is true or not

Whether the claim at issue attaches to the conclusion or not

Whether the claim at issue is clearly understood

Whether the claim is not ambiguous

Whether the claim at issue is open for discussion and resolution

Question 3.3. (TCO 1, 2, 3) What are the two conditions needed for a premise to offer support for a conclusion? (Points : 4)

It is ethical and justifies an action

It provides knowledge and defines terms

It provides reasons and analyzes data

It specifies what caused something and how it works

It is true and relevant to the conclusion

Question 4.4. (TCOs 2, 3) For inductive arguments, how do we measure their quality as stronger or weaker? (Points : 4)

Based on how much support their premises provide for the conclusion

Based on requiring little translation into syllogistic form

Based on their appearing in a standard form

Based on the clear definition of critical words

Based on the syllogism that can be formed from them

Question 5.5. (TCO 1, 2) The mode of persuasion that Aristotle defined as logos refers to arguments based on what? (Points : 4)

Whether a decision is ethical

Being alert to influences in one’s thinking

The speaker’s personal attributes

The audience’s emotions

Using information and reasoning

Question 6.6. (TCO 6) After identifying the author's conclusion or thesis in a passage, what is the next step for understanding it? (Points : 4)

Locating the reasons that have been offered to support the conclusion

Separating the argument from other nonargumentative material attached to it

Identifying prejudicial coloring in the language of the passage

Clarifying the context of the passage

Determining the exact meaning of the thesis

Question 7.7. (TCOs 6, 7, 8, 9) Which of the five items below is usually NOT a part of a good argumentative essay? (Points : 4)

Discrediting of other authors

Rebuttals of arguments that support contrary positions

A statement of the issue

A statement of one's position on the issue

Arguments that support one's position on the issue

Question 8.8. (TCOs 6, 8, 9) What is the precise meaning of syntactic ambiguity? (Points : 4)

A statement is vague

It is not clear to what a pronoun is supposed to refer

A statement contains an ambiguous word or phrase

A claim is open to two or more interpretations because of its structure

It is not clear whether a word is being used to refer to a group collectively or to members within the group individually

Question 9.9. (TCOs 2, 6, 7, 8) If a claim is made by a disinterested party, we know that (Points : 4)

disinterested parties have no stake in our believing one way or another.

disinterested parties bring weaker information.

disinterested parties lack expertise in the content of given claims.

disinterested parties lack credibility over a given claim.

disinterested parties bring irrelevant considerations to discussions.

Question 10.10. (TCOs 1, 6, 7, 9) What is the purpose of the rhetorical device called a dysphemism? (Points : 4)

To improve reader acceptability of conflicting information

To convey disinformation to readers

To clarify language that would otherwise be vague

To overcome ambiguity

To produce negative effects in listener’s and reader’s attitudes towards something

Question 11.11. (TCOs 1, 7) What is the purpose of the rhetorical device called a proof surrogate? (Points : 4)

A claim for the validity of a euphemism

A suggestion that there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing it

A claim that proof has actually been achieved in the past

A replacement of one author or speaker by one with greater recognition

A legal process of claim by precedent

Question 12.12. (TCOs 1, 2) What is the personal ad hominem fallacy? (Points : 4)

Attacking an argument based on the personal shortcomings of the one making the argument

The status given to an argument based on the fame and good reputation of the originating person

Attacking an argument based on the confusion of what the author has presented before

Attacking an argument because of who presented it

Attributing added value to an argument based on who has presented it

Question 13.13. (TCOs 6, 7, 8) To the overall topic of burden of proof, what is the purpose of the rule called initial plausibility? (Points : 4)

The initial response of listeners or readers based on their background information

The plain and common sense of a claim when first presented

The greater burden of proof placed on someone who asserts a claim

The status of being the first claim or argument presented when a controversy begins

The greater burden of proof placed upon the first person to try to refute an argument

Question 14.14. (TCOs 1, 2) What is a standard-form categorical claim? (Points : 4)

The claim that the burden of proof must be shared because the evidence is too weak and indirect.

A claim based on the primary documents of early philosophers.

A claim that strictly follows Aristotle’s method.

A claim that relies upon the orderly processes of biology.

A claim that results from putting names or descriptions of classes into one of the AEIO forms.

Question 15.15. (TCOs 3, 4) Each standard form of categorical logic has its own graphic illustration known by what name? (Points : 4)

Overlapping regions

Block of exclusion

JoHari window

Venn diagram

Square of opposition

Question 16.16. (TCOs 3, 4, 8, 9) Claims are equivalent under what terms? (Points : 4)

Under no circumstances could both be false.

Under no circumstances could one of them be true and the other false.

Under no circumstances could the truth of one transfer to the other one.

Under no circumstances could the conclusion be true if the premise is false.

Under no circumstance can they both be translated into differing standard forms of categorical logic.

Question 17.17. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) Logical relationships between corresponding claims of standard-form categorical logic are illustrated in the graphic square of opposition. What is known about two claims when they are called contradictory claims? (Points : 4)

They never have the same truth values.

One is always false in the set.

They always have the same truth values.

They never share the same subject term.

One is always true in the set.

Question 18.18. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) How do you find the converse of a standard-form claim? (Points : 4)

By matching the nouns of two claims

By changing the same claim into a negative claim

By changing the negative claim of a pair to positive language

By finding a term common to both the subject and predicate

By switching the positions of the subject and predicate terms

Question 19.19. (TCOs 2, 5) What question is addressed in concerns for bias in sampling? (Points : 4)

Is the sample size large enough to overcome issues of random sampling of a diverse target population?

What exactly is the feature in the target population that needs to be carefully included in the sample?

Is there sufficient probability that the conclusion will support a hypothesis about the target population?

Is there sufficient probability that the conclusion will support a hypothesis about the sample?

Is any related factor present in the sample in a frequency different from what we would expect to find in the target population?

Question 20.20. (TCOs 2, 5) In studying a sample, what is meant by the term error margin? (Points : 4)

Underlying assumptions about the choice of the sample itself

The range of random variation from sample to sample

Factors that reduce the diversity of the sample

The randomness of the sample population

The size of the sample itself

Question 21.21. (TCOs 1, 5, 8, 9) What is the inductive “fallacy of anecdotal evidence”? (Points : 4)

A version of hasty generalizing where the sample is just a story

Bypassing standard questions to ask for opinions

Telling personal experiences

Bypassing standard questioning to accept data that does not match the possible answers

Asking hypothetical questions of "what if..."

Question 22.22. (TCOs 1, 2) What does "attacking the analogy" mean? (Points : 4)

The acceptance of a lowered degree of similarity between analogues

Showing that analogues are not as similar as stated or implied

A conclusion based on the earliest results of a sample

Showing the interpretation of results

Overestimating the strength of an analogy

Question 23.23. (TCOs 1, 2, 3) What is the difference between an explanation and an argument? (Points : 4)

Arguments are specific; explanations are general.

Arguments support or demonstrate statements; explanations elucidate something in one way or another.

Arguments describe what does happen; explanations describe what will happen.

Arguments show the interpretation of results; explanations show the reasons for the results.

Arguments make claims; explanations make premises.

Question 24.24. (TCOs 2, 6) What is the driving concept within religious relativism in ethics? (Points : 4)

The belief that what is right and wrong is whatever one's religious affiliation or culture deems to be right and wrong

That only one's own religion has the correct access to ethics

That the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy does not apply to the leaders of one's religious group

That it is important to be affiliated with a group in order to adopt its ethics and moral standards

That there is no ethical variation or conflict within religious groups when the religious groups engage controversial topics

Question 25.25. (TCOs 1, 6) "If separate cases are not different in any relevant way, then they should be treated the same way, and if separate cases are treated in the same way, they should not be different in any relevant way." What is this principle called? (Points : 4)

Aesthetic principle

Confluence principle

Consistency principle

Distributive justice

Categorical imperative

Page 2

Question 1. 1. (TCOs 3, 6, 7, 9) Here is a passage that contains a rhetorical fallacy.

Name that fallacy, and in a paragraph, explain why the argument is irrelevant to the point of the passage. Here is your example for this question:

Republican says, "What do you think of our party's new plan for Medicare?"

Democrat says, "I think it is pretty good, as a matter of fact."

Republican, "Oh? Why is that?"

Democrat, "Because you Republicans haven't even offered a plan, that's why!" (Points : 15)

Question 2. 2. (TCOs 5, 8) In the example below, identify the presumed cause and the presumed effect. Does the example contain or imply a causal claim, a hypothesis, or an explanation that cannot be tested?

If it does fall into one of those categories, tell whether the problem is due to vagueness, circularity, or some other problem of language.

Also tell whether there might be some way to test the situation if it is possible at all.

Here is your example:

This part of the coastline is subject to mudslides because there is a lack of mature vegetation growing on it. (Points : 15)

Question 3. 3. (TCOs 2, 4) Explain in what way the thinking of the following statement is wrong or defective. Give reasons for your judgment.

I believe that violent video games contribute to sexual violence and other forms of antisocial behavior. No one has ever shown that it doesn’t. (Points : 10)

Question 4. 4. (TCOs 3, 9) Suppose that a group of immigrants to the U.S. believes in child sacrifice as an essential part of their religious rituals. If one day the immigrant group becomes so integrated into U.S. society that most of its members no longer believe in child sacrifice, can this be thought of as moral progress from the standpoint of moral relativism? (Points : 10)

Question 5. 5. (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Here is a short essay about an investigation.

Here are also four questions/tasks write a paragraph to answer each one of them:

1. Identify the causal hypothesis at issue.

2. Identify what kind of investigation it is.

3. There are control and experimental groups. State the difference in effect (or cause) between the control and experimental groups.

4. State the conclusion that you think is warranted by the report.

Does jogging keep you healthy? Two independent researchers interested in whether exercise prevents colds interviewed 20 volunteers about the frequency with which they caught colds. The volunteers, none of who exercised regularly, were then divided into two groups of 10, and one group participated in a six-month regimen of jogging three miles every other day. At the end of the six months, the frequency of colds among the joggers was compared both with that of the nonjoggers and with that of the joggers prior to the experiment. It was found that, compared with the nonjoggers, the joggers had 25% fewer colds. The record of colds among the joggers also declined in comparison with their own record prior to the exercise program. (Points : 30)

Question 6. 6. (TCOs 3, 4, 6) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.

Your three questions are:

1. What issue is the author addressing?

2. If the author is supporting a position with an argument, restate the argument in your own words.

3. What rhetorical devices does the author employ in this text?

The Passage:

"Another quality that makes [Texas Republican and former Congressman] Tom DeLay an un-Texas politician is that he's mean. By and large, Texas pols are an agreeable set of less-than-perfect humans and quite often well-intentioned. As Carl Parker of Port Arthur used to observe, if you took all the fools out of the [legislature], it would not be a representative body any longer. The old sense of collegiality was strong, and vindictive behavior punishing pols for partisan reasons was simply not done. But those are Tom DeLay's specialties, his trademarks. The Hammer is not only genuinely feared in Washington, he is, I'm sorry to say, hated."

-excerpt from a column by Molly Ivins, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (Points : 30)

Question 7. 7. (TCOs 7, 8) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer the question in at least one full paragraph, giving specific reasons.

The Passage:

One day, out of frustration, your roommate rips several pages out of his or her textbook, rolls them up, and throws them across the room. You go to pick up the pages. “Leave them,” your roommate insists. “It says something. It’s art.” “It’s garbage,” you reply. Who is right? (Points : 20)

Question 8. 8. (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.

Your three questions are as follows.

1. What premises is the author using?

2. What conclusions does the author come to?

3. Are the conclusions justified?

Either one thinks that there is no reason for believing any political doctrine or one sees some reason, however shaky, for the commitment of politics. If a person believes that political doctrines are void of content, that person will be quite content to see political debates go on, but won't expect anything useful to come from them. If we consider the other case that there is a patriotic justification for a political belief, then what? If the belief is that a specific political position is true, then one ought to be intolerant of all other political beliefs, since each political position must be held to be false relative to the belief one has. And since each political position holds out the promise of reward for any probability of its fixing social problems, however small, that makes it seem rational to choose it over its alternatives. The trouble, of course, is that the people who have other political doctrines may hold theirs just as strongly, making strength of belief itself invalid as a way to determine the rightness of a political position. (Points : 20)

Solution-Phil 447 Final Exam
Answered by sunshine
Expert Rating: 112 Ratings
Dated: 28th Jun'15 12:20 PM
4 words and 1 attachment(s).
Tutorial Rating: 7 Ratings
Sold 7 times.
(preview of the tutorial; some sections have been intentionally blurred)


Preview of Solution-DeVry-Phil-447-Final-Exam.docx
Arguments     interpretation   results; explanations     reasons       Arguments   claims; explanations     Question       2,   What is     concept       in   (Points :     belief       right   wrong is     religious       deems   be right     That       religion   the correct     ethics       ad   fallacy does     to       one's   group That     important       with   group in     adopt       moral   That there     ethical       within   groups when     groups       25   (TCOs 1,     separate       different   any relevant     they       the   way, and     cases       the   way, they     be       relevant   " What     principle       4)   principle Confluence     principle       imperativePage   Question 1     3,       Here   a passage     a       that   and in     explain       is   to the     the       your   for this     "What       of   party's new     Medicare?"Democrat       it   pretty good,     matter